It seems we’re not the only ones who find Team Pyro’s tactics more than a little ridiculous.


At some point you’d think that when everyone other than your reflexive supporters are either rebuking you or ridiculing you that you’d drop the entire schtick. I expect that Phil Johnson’s absolute, unshakable faith in himself remains, so expect to see some more posters from him.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Saturday, September 1st, 2007 at 12:29 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

38 Comments(+Add)

1   jazzact13
September 1st, 2007 at 12:53 pm

I have been to sites like Slice and Leaven several times, even had the gall to post in disagreement to the majority viewpoint. I suppose it’s partially morbid curiosity that takes me back to them, though I don’t disagree with everything they bring up, either. I would wish they would stick more with the major issues and not go off on things like the types of seats in church and VeggieTales.

Saying that, I’m not sold on the whole EC thing, either. Too many of the ‘leaders’ in it have said some pretty whacky things. For myself, I have nothing against using the arts or incense or such things in a service, as long as the service also has sound doctrine in it.

I think that some of Pyro’s posters had points to them (though being a U2 fan the one dissing Bono wasn’t one of my favorites), and those at Boar’s Head had some pretty sharp comebacks.

I do find it inconsistent that sites like Leaven diss some Christians for ‘copying’ things from the secular world, while seeming to not have problems with Pyro doind the same with their posters; after all, didn’t those kinds of posters begins as inspirational things for workplaces?

2   Rick Frueh
September 1st, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Although the depth of malisciousness varied within the posters, the overall intent was to mock while providing a self agrandizing entertainment for the agreeable audience. And when some on the blog scene castigate the mega-churches because of their entertainment, artistic presentation, over the top caricatures, visual light shows, and concentration on sensory communication, why don’t blogs like Pyros get more scrutinized?

Is there any more artistically creative, sensory, creative metaphors, and overall visual light show than Pyro? They present their truth against a backdrop of visual and intellectual caricatures complete with open humor and hidden innuendo that is meant for the consumption of the choir, do they not?

So in essence, they are a mega-blog that uses some of the same techniques as does Saddleback and Willowbrook just from a different theological perspective.

For open disclosure, I have always been treated fairly when I’ve commented over there, I just wondered why no one ever noticed that their method of presentation mirrored others that some reject. Maybe it’s just me…

3   chris
September 1st, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Bordering on innappropiate I share what Chuck Swindoll said during a service one time…

“If one man thinks you to be an ass, pay no attention. If two men think you to be an ass, go get fitted for a saddle”

4   sandy    
September 1st, 2007 at 4:55 pm

Bordering on innappropiate I share what Chuck Swindoll said during a service one time…

“If one man thinks you to be an ass, pay no attention. If two men think you to be an ass, go get fitted for a saddle”

I wonder why this was not a Ingrid’s list of reasons to kick Chuck off the air….

5   Rick Frueh
September 1st, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Personally I allow words that appear in Scripture. According to Ingrid’s rules she would have to ban Luther, her hero!

6   Rick Ianniello
September 1st, 2007 at 7:12 pm

Rick – I’ve done both. I’ve snapped at those guys and I’ve been extremely kind. In all cases I was beaten by them and their flock. Sorry, my experience doesn’t match yours.

7   Rick Frueh
September 1st, 2007 at 7:23 pm

I understand, Rick. I enjoy your blog too.

8   iggy
September 1st, 2007 at 8:47 pm

Rick, meet Rick, Rick, Rick…

Nice to introduced you to each other….

OH Wait you guys have met before? GREAT!

My two Ricks… the bookends of theology! LOL!

Love you both!

Be Blessed,

9   Rick Frueh
September 1st, 2007 at 9:24 pm

Iggy – Rick was chosen,

I was choiced!

10   iggy
September 1st, 2007 at 9:50 pm

Rick and Rick,

Interestingly I was reading Knowing God by J I Packer who stated in the list of Five Basic Truths

5. Godliness means responding to God’s revelation in trust and obedience, faith and worship, prayer and praise, submission and service. Life must be seen and lived in the light of God’s Word. This, and nothing else, is true religion.

Note there regardless to what “some” Calvinist insist… that at least the Calvinist J. I Packer states “responding to” as part of the basic points.

I wonder how that would fly with TeamPyro and DeadTheologians… (which has actually be civil compared to most of the “truth war” blogs out there… at least to this apostate-unsaved- emergent/emerging guy! LOL!

I guess Ken would just call J.I Packer a semi-pelagian!

Be Blessed,

11   Rick Frueh
September 1st, 2007 at 10:13 pm

Iggy – The thing is that I appreciate many Calvinists that share about Christ and His Word without constantly trying to convert me. I pastored and attended free will churches for decades and we never spoke of free will and very rarely even mentioned Calvinism. Most people would not know what your talking about.

But if you attend a reformed or Calvinistic church they are almost obsessed with it. That is what is so offensive. People like Rick are great brothers who can fellowship with anyone without doctrinal condescension. And I think a few writers here are reformed but without the crusade that others engage in.

Iggy – I believe you are a doctrinal mongrel, right? By the way, I am non dispensational when it comes to the gifts of the Spirit although I don’t subscribe to the average charismatic definition of them. And I am a free worshiper complete with hands, feet, and voice!

12   iggy
September 1st, 2007 at 10:23 pm


“I believe you are a doctrinal mongrel, right?”

LOL! I love it!

I have been involved in many different traditions… I used to just believe what I was taught until I realized that I was reading the bible through “doctrinal glasses” There are a few of us mongrels out there… and we love to toss theology around… but corner us in that junk yard over grace! and watch out! LOL!

Believe it or not… one can become legalistic over grace! I have even done that.

Most of my theology came out of pain… i am not joking. God confronts me with something and then points out the thing in scripture… and then… I am cut to the quick… and it hurts!

So, pain is what makes me realize what Great Grace and Mercy we have in Christ!

Be blessed,

13   Julie
September 1st, 2007 at 10:45 pm

The only thing I can say about the Pyromaniacs site is that I rue the day Photoshop was invented for the sheer amount of visual assault and graphic abuse as evidenced on that blog.

14   iggy
September 1st, 2007 at 11:03 pm


You try it… it not that easy! LOL!


15   iggy
September 1st, 2007 at 11:07 pm


OK I will stop… These were for Julie as i am in right brain mode tonight!

Be Blessed,

16   chris
September 2nd, 2007 at 3:29 am

But if you attend a reformed or Calvinistic church they are almost obsessed with it.

Preach it brother!

Spent most of my life (christian life) in Methodist and/or Charismatic churches. Now that I attend a Reformed Church in America I’m starting to think that Calvin is somehow associated with the trinity.

17   Keith
September 2nd, 2007 at 8:41 am

I told myself I needed a break from this sort of thing, but this site is like a bad train wreck–I can’t look away!

Chris (and others): So if one person/site says it ignore it, but it two or more agree, then it must be true? I assume you are applying this “rule” to Slice, Apprising, the Pyros, etc. Does the same also apply to THIS site?

Iggy: Actually, that’s pretty clever.

Rick: I attended a Restoration Movement (Stone/Campbell) church for 20 years and don’t recall them discussing doctrine. I was told it was too divisive. When I asked one of the Elders about that, he replied: “Who the h*** cares!” However, they were quick to emphasize that salvation is dependent upon baptism–their belief that you do not receive the Holy Spirit UNTIL you are baptized. In all my years there, no one was ever “saved;” they were “baptized.”

Julie: “…rue the day” From the movie Real Genius:

Kent: I’m gonna get you guys. Dr. Hathaway’s gonna hear all about this. You know, you’ll rue the day!
Chris Knight: “Rue the day?” Who talks like that?

You are right. Those Pyro guys have some of the BEST graphics! Really makes their site unique (and very appealing to a graphic arts guy like myself). You should talk to the fellows here about dressing things up a bit…maybe you could lend some of your skills (I know you’ve got some “great skills–bowhunting skills, computer hacking skills….”) to the site. I really like yours.

I think the Barney Fife poster at Boarshead is HILARIOUS!

18   Rick Frueh
September 2nd, 2007 at 8:50 am

Keith – You then are consistent. My point was that some skewer Saddleback and Willowcreek for that type of artistic theatrics in their communication, so why do those same people not question Pyro? They obviously do the same thing only with pictures and words so without concluded the rightness or wrongness of it it seems to me it is the blog equivalent of the visual theatre that many seeker churches employ.

I am in earnest and I find some of their stuff funny with a few distinct exeptions. Don’t you think that they use similar venues to communicate truth, even from a different theological perspective?

19   chris
September 2nd, 2007 at 11:15 am

So if one person/site says it ignore it, but it two or more agree, then it must be true? I assume you are applying this “rule” to Slice, Apprising, the Pyros, etc. Does the same also apply to THIS site?

Keith I actually apply that standard to myself first. In regards to the aforementioned sites I wrote them off long before I got a second opinion.

20   Tim Reed
September 2nd, 2007 at 4:38 pm

So if one person/site says it ignore it, but it two or more agree, then it must be true?

Its more the idea that other than the people who reflexively agree wtih them they’re being universally criticized in some way shape or form.

21   Keith
September 2nd, 2007 at 7:08 pm

Chris: If you wrote those sites off–and I can see how you would–why this site? Why not just let us (I include myself simply because I may not be a major contributor, but for the most part, I am in agreement with the aforementioned sites) and our ilk just continue doing what we do without rebuttal or comment?

Tim: Could you expound on your comment?

22   Tim Reed
September 2nd, 2007 at 9:55 pm

What I mean is that I visit a wide variety of blogs, several of which have commented on this. The only ones which have done so positively are the ones that always comment positively about TP. The rest have been negative. Even group blogs that pull from many different backgrounds have been negative. At some point there should be some introspection when this situation comes about. Especailly on something as non-essential as this.

23   iggy
September 2nd, 2007 at 11:12 pm


You know I am truly thankful for TP as when I have to use the toilet not having TP is really rough…

Oh…. wait….

Your not talking about THAT TP are you?

Sorry… but it is still rough!


24   Bob    
September 3rd, 2007 at 7:49 am

Hmmm… i took the high road with them and did not respond in kind. After they mocked “us” for not being able to field a team, I tried to make the point that it was sad the only thing they would respond to was more mocking humor back.

For that I got the “eye for eye” treatment here at…

While on the whole I think it’s unproductive to respond at all to these guys when they are simply mocking… I’m glad to see by this post that at least some here see a bit of back and forth as something other than “eye for eye” (the “grace to you” poster was a classic…)

25   Rick Frueh
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:07 am

I believe the issue goes furthur than the posters themselves, it goes deeper into the entire highbrowed way in which some deal with different streams of Christian thought within the church itself. These posters openly reveal the demeaning way in which some “camps” not only dialogue with others, but actually how they see other people.

Since the bell cannot be unrung, the opposing posters are humorous but the whole canopy of biting humor, mocking and even condescending, is the issue that surely is unbiblical. And the cavalier attitude of “get over it” toward those of us who question the heart behind the posters just reinforces the suspicions that some of us have about the unloving and somewhat snobbish way in which some communicate with others.

26   Chris L
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:16 am


Sorry for not giving you a clearer response – I had been trying to make a specific point on how I was hoping the emerging and ODM-responsive crowd would react to the gross misrepresentation and snideness from the “discernment” (quotes intended) sites. While I was writing that post, one of the other writers was working on the photoshop, which resulted in the only time we have revised an article to remove content.

I did not see that they ever challenged us to “field a team”, but I have specifically tried to tune this issue out, so I haven’t actively been looking for a challenge on that front.

While I did find your responses (and the ones from the writer here) rather humorous (I would be lying if I said I didn’t), I just didn’t see that they were helpful in response to similar mis-treatment.

27   Joe Martino
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:38 am

I love the post today, where the ubiquitous editor seems to miss simple grammar in Revelation using the phrase

you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Somehow our exegetical editor does some eisogesis and seems to miss the fact that Jesus says He hates the works of the Nicolaitans not them. I sincerely wonder if the church will ever stop mis-using Scripture to justify their own hate.
Roll on Appalachian State!!

28   amy    
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:50 am

Somehow our exegetical editor does some eisogesis and seems to miss the fact that Jesus says He hates the works of the Nicolaitans not them.

Are you implying that the article said that Jesus said he hated the Nicolaitans? Because unless it’s been changed since you wrote this, or unless I misread it, it doesn’t.

29   Tim Reed
September 3rd, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Appalachian State made my Sunday much more enjoyable as well.

30   Joe Martino
September 3rd, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Dude, I’m buying a hat. has a sweet old school white one. Buy one get the second half off, want to go halfs?

31   Joe Martino
September 3rd, 2007 at 12:32 pm

No, I’m not trying to imply that or say that they said that. I am saying that the implication that it is OK for them to act in a hateful manner towards those they disagree with seems obvious to me.

32   Rick Frueh
September 3rd, 2007 at 12:52 pm

No one knows for sure who the Nicolaitans were, so to imply they represent some groups today, that is the questionable exegesis. Just like the woman Jezebel, no one can authoritatively say who she was.

Wresting Scripture for their own purposes.

33   Tim Reed
September 3rd, 2007 at 12:55 pm

Haha. How much is half?

34   Joe Martino
September 3rd, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Probably be about 11$

35   Rick Frueh
September 3rd, 2007 at 1:09 pm

FYI – The Nicolaitans were people who wanted to raise the price of a stamp to a nickel.

Jezebel was the first woman preacher.

36   Chris Rosebrough
September 3rd, 2007 at 2:30 pm


The post at CRN says that Jesus hates the WORKS of the Nicolaitans. The Editor is NOT saying that Jesus hates the Nicolaitans.

But this leads us to notice something very important from this text.

Jesus is saying that HE HATES their works. This is very very bad news for the Nicolaitans.

The implication here is that their false creeds/doctrines has made their WORKS a stench in Christ’s nostrils.

This fits perfectly with the passage from Hebrews 11:6 that says that “Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God.”

The Nicolaitans, through their false teaching had put themselves outside of the Christian faith. Even their works, which I am sure they felt like they were doing them for God, had become hateful to God.

Jesus is telling us that the Nicolaitans are going to face his judgment and their works will not even remotely be able to save them because Jesus HATES them.

Let the Nicolaitans serve as a warning to all who think that Jesus doesn’t care about what doctrines or creeds you confess and that the only thing he cares about is that you are a ‘Christ Follower’. You cannot be a Christ Follower if you believe a false gospel. Orthodoxy is not generous at all.

37   Joe Martino
September 3rd, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Chris I agree with you about the passage, I just think (and I more than realize I could be wrong) that the editor is implying that some of the hateful things that come out of their side are OK, because of these verses. BTW, did you get my email?

38   Tim Reed
September 3rd, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Interesting that a post that would be guaranteed to kick up some dust would be written anonymously.